You are ignoring the fact that normal profit does not come from exploitation, monopoly profit does, and no one on this board is arguing for monopoly as far as I know. If you are claiming that normal profit is exploitative, demonstrate how.
In a workers collective, the worker assume the risk. So if customer demand changes, they dont just lose their jobs but lose their savings or collateral on their loans.(socialists are against loans in the first plce, so they are most likely losing their savings). A capitalist is someone who professionally takes risk and manages capital. Worker typically dont want to do this, thats why they get educated in agriculture, engineering, etc. intead of going for business degrees. When the capital is collectively owned the workers have to assume the risk, which are most likely not prepared for or willing to do, I know for a fact I am at a point in my life when I do not want to take risks, I just want to earn a wage and pay my bills.
How do you calculate the sustainability of any given firm in a democratic system? How do you know everyone wants hamburgers with onions and mustard? Or that everyone wants hamburgers at all? This is the calculation problem of planned economies. And guess what, no one has solved it. It doesn’t matter if you come up with Borg-like hivemind system for human beings, you still couldn’t compute in real time the wants, needs, and goals of each and every other person. All you could do is approximate it. So, no, kiddo, there’s no way to democratically calculate the economy.
No, you didn’t. You gave a website and implied “Oh, look at the poor people who make next to nothing compared to the developed world! That’s exploitation”. Well no, it isn’t.
Profit is not exploitation, little one. Stop repeating Marxist dogma, because I guarantee you don’t even know what you’re talking about. You’ve never done thing one for research. You just mouth the slogans and think that chanting meaningless verbiage will make your case. It. Will. Not.
Now either show that there is exploitation or GTFO. Remember: asserting that profit is exploitation will not do. Expounding on your claim by saying that workers not getting paid for as much as the product sells for (the upshot of your claim) is not showing exploitation. It is simply a baseless assertion and attempting to define something into existence without ever actually showing the logical reasons for it. If you have nothing but emotive pleas/sob stories–you have nothing. Get with the program, kid. This isn’t revleft; we demand EVIDENCE, not whining crybaby sob stories. If you can’t handle that, I suggest you go back to revleft.
No I didn’t imply anything. I posted daily wages and then posted the cheapest product they were producing and oh what do you know there is a difference even if they only produce one pair of shoes a day! And I explained that the difference was mainly profit with the exception of transportation ect.
Profit isn’t exploitation? Dictionary is lying to me again! I just chant meaningless Marxist slogans, eh? I’m not a Marxist, I haven’t read the communist manifesto. Stalin and Lenin are pricks and what we have in the world is not anywhere close to capitalism. I’m not a Marxist drone.
“profit” in its literal meaning just means fulfillin a want. You are saying that normal profit that capitalits earn in a competitive market is exploitative, so explain how
I’m not advocating a planned economy. I’m advocating democratic control of the workplace not of the economy.
See above post.
How do they lose their savings? Not all their money is invested in the business if any is at all. If a democratically managed business fails to meet the consumer’s demands then it will fail which historically democratically controlled businesses have higher productivity rates than privately owned businesses.
You can’t democratically control the workplace. Atleast not without the workers putting their money with their mouth is as it’s done at Hershey’s, in which pensions and profit sharing are directly linked to the company’s bottom line. Thus, forcing the worker to act as an entrepreneur. So, your entire argument is shallow after all. It’s sad too, because I thought you might bring to me something original, but you haven’t so I must say thanks for all the fish.
Your argument boils down to: exploitation is wrong because the money is going to underserving hands, and those undeserving hands do not deserve the money because they are gained through exploitation. You, miss, are begging the question.
However, it does. It’s usually called: selling at a loss. Such as, when a firm goes out of businnes and liquidiates. Sometime they sell their stuff below cost.
Why not? Also, could you rephrase that statement so that it is less figurative? Pretty please?
So, would you agree that we haven’t had capitalism (as defined by you) for at least the past 100 years?
Examples pleas. I don’t want to guess which examples you are refering to.
Where was the free enterprise? The mere existence of the state makes it not “real capitalsim”.
So why do they do it?
How is worker exploitation necessary for a capitalist owner to acculate the capital? If I plant an apple tree in my backyard, and then hire a worker to pick the apples, did I come about my resources through exploitation?
“Colonial capitalism”? You mean mercantalism?
Question: what is Marx’s formal definition for capitalism?
Taras Smereka, fix your quotes. You are misquoting me for something that what’s-her-name wrote.
Re-read the exchange. Your answer didn’t follow from my question.
Can I get an non-emotional response, please?
So humans shouldn’t own ducks? Not even collectively? Anyway, you fail to prove that renting = ownership. Thus, your question about slavery is irrelevant at this point.
I still don’t understand what it means since you have failed to provide a definiton.
So what you are saying is that two people can each have 100% ownership of a factory?
Furthermore, even in terms of actual day-to-day operation at Hershey’s no one votes what candy bar line gets the axe or not. That’s still handled by management. So, there’s no direct democracy either at Hershey’s. The nature of entrepreneurship is one that focuses on the individual capacities of each person. Whether it’s the actual executive that plans the basic direction of the business or the capital investor that puts up the funds necessary for the executive to act. But at each stage, no one human being in the process has any omniscience or omnipresence. Thus, no democratic system could ever incorporate what is hidden or internal. This is the nature of existence. It’s a pattern not woven from only the seen, but more often it is woven of things unseen. I suggest two books for you to expand your knowledge set on: Wisdom of the Crowds (The author goes on to explain what is an unwise crowd and a wise crowd…), and Social Emergence: Societies As Complex Systems (it’s a good book outlining the basics of emergent order in social constructs).
Then by your logic, an artist is an exploiter as s/he is the minority that has the power to see what is pleasing aesthetically. Or that an inventor is an exploiter as s/he can think up what may be useful for others, but wants a profit for it. What you’re failing to see is that wealth is created. Today, the poorest among the Western nations have cell phones, shoes, plumbing, some healthcare, some education, cars or public transit, televisions, computers and internet access. Compare that to how folks, even the rich, lived four centuries ago. Then you’ll realize your entire reasoning is as empty as a drunkard’s flagon.
im sorry, didnt mean to but the quotes are annoying me and i dont really care, you all understand so its not an issue
Anyway, truthdoesnotexist, you are deliberately ignoring my points about worker assuming risk and normal vs monopoly profits. Pretty sure you are just a standard religious marxoid or some sort of troll, but feel free to prove me wrong.
